Thread: pgsql-server/src/include/catalog pg_proc.h
CVSROOT: /cvsroot
Module name: pgsql-server
Changes by: tgl@postgresql.org 02/08/20 15:23:07
Modified files:
src/include/catalog: pg_proc.h
Log message:
Use a non-duplicate OID for pg_lock_status.
I thought he sent in a patch the specifically mentioned he didn't use a duplicate oid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Lane wrote: > CVSROOT: /cvsroot > Module name: pgsql-server > Changes by: tgl@postgresql.org 02/08/20 15:23:07 > > Modified files: > src/include/catalog: pg_proc.h > > Log message: > Use a non-duplicate OID for pg_lock_status. > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I thought he sent in a patch the specifically mentioned he didn't use a
> duplicate oid.
duplicate_oids didn't think so. The conflict was against another system
catalog, so you'd not have noticed if you didn't run duplicate_oids.
regards, tom lane
No - that was for my pg_stat_reset patch, and at the time of submission it didn't conflict with any other oids... Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-committers-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-committers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian > Sent: Wednesday, 21 August 2002 4:45 AM > To: Tom Lane > Cc: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/src/include/catalog pg_proc.h > > > > I thought he sent in a patch the specifically mentioned he didn't use a > duplicate oid. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > --------- > > Tom Lane wrote: > > CVSROOT: /cvsroot > > Module name: pgsql-server > > Changes by: tgl@postgresql.org 02/08/20 15:23:07 > > > > Modified files: > > src/include/catalog: pg_proc.h > > > > Log message: > > Use a non-duplicate OID for pg_lock_status. > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > > > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, > Pennsylvania 19073 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> No - that was for my pg_stat_reset patch, and at the time of submission it
> didn't conflict with any other oids...
Yeah, things are moving so quickly now that patches which add catalog
items may easily hit each other in transit. The best short-term
solution seems to be to expect committers to run 'duplicate_oids' before
committing anything that adds catalog entries.
In the long run we might want to think about reassigning the
hand-assigned OIDs in some more-rational fashion; the current OID layout
is a complete mess with no visible rhyme or reason...
regards, tom lane